ProjectLawful.com: Eliezer's latest story, past 1M words

Hrm, I think I could code in a way to specify the height of the box... lemme look into it.

Thanks for all your suggestions, btw!

↑ comment by gjm · 2022-05-12T21:50:28.379Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I have a kinda-opposite problem. There's a "wide mode" but not a "tall mode", and for reasons beyond my understanding the box with the actual content in it is about half the height of my browser window. I can understand why you wouldn't make it full-width by default -- very wide text can be hard to read -- but I can't think of any reason for preferring less than (full height minus reasonable margins).

Personally, for width I would prefer something intermediate between normal and "wide" (given the actual dimensions of my browser window, which occupies half of quite a large monitor) and for height I would prefer All The Pixels. Would it be difficult to have a "manual control" mode where you can set width, height and font size arbitrarily?

Replies from: austin-chen

↑ comment by Austin Chen (austin-chen) · 2022-05-13T00:56:38.357Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Done! Thanks for the feedback. Hoping 2000px is plenty but it's easy to increase lol.

(Having too many options is sometimes a symptom of bad UX design, but it seems reasonable for a web reader to support these all of these.)

Replies from: gjm, Yoav Ravid

↑ comment by gjm · 2022-05-13T15:34:56.741Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Nice!

I see it's some way behind the current state of the story. Is that because there's some background thing that fetches only every so often, or because there's a cacheing layer that might be stale, or what?

[EDITED to add:] I guess it's reading from the epub on Dropbox?

Replies from: austin-chen

↑ comment by Austin Chen (austin-chen) · 2022-05-13T21:57:59.444Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yeah probably a stale caching layer, what fic were you reading? Glowflow doesn't read from an epub, it's reading html from the site itself.

Lemme try rebooting to see if that refreshes. That's obviously not sustainable... I didn't expect people to actually use it for a live, updating fic lol.

Edit: added a "Clear cache" button, hope that solves it!

Replies from: gjm, gjm

↑ comment by gjm · 2022-05-14T18:52:01.171Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Currently some way behind again; clicking "clear cache" does do something that looks like reloading but doesn't make it not be some way behind.

[EDITED a couple of days later to add:] No change to what the reader is showing since then even though there have been updates on glowfic.com. The "clear cache" button doesn't appear to help. Forcibly reloading the page also doesn't appear to help.

↑ comment by gjm · 2022-05-13T22:26:29.695Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I was, unsurprisingly given context :-), trying to read the latest Planecrash: https://share.streamlit.io/akrolsmir/glowflow/main?post=5930

Right now, what happens when I go there is that I get "Oh no. Error running app. If this keeps happening, please contact support." (In both Firefox and Chrome, on Linux. It was OK earlier today. I have Firefox configured to disable most Javascript but have whitelisted the domains I think the app actually needs, and again it was working OK earlier today, and Chrome doesn't have any of the JS-blocking stuff.)

The only possibly-useful-looking thing in the Javascript console says "INITIAL -> (10, 0, undefined) -> ERROR".

Replies from: austin-chen

↑ comment by Austin Chen (austin-chen) · 2022-05-13T23:18:51.274Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Sorry about that - had some configuration issues. It should work now!

Replies from: gjm

↑ comment by gjm · 2022-05-13T23:34:50.777Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yup, all working (and apparently up to date) now. Thanks!

↑ comment by Yoav Ravid · 2022-05-13T03:07:47.703Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is how it looks now when I increase the width. The outer box doesn't widen together with the text and background, and the text doesn't stay centered. Also, dark mode seems to have stopped working.

Replies from: austin-chen

↑ comment by Austin Chen (austin-chen) · 2022-05-13T11:24:14.234Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

dark mode seems to have stopped working

 

Hm, do you have "dark mode" toggled on the sidebar? (There's two settings unfortunately due to how Streamlit is set up):

 

The outer box doesn't widen together with the text and background, and the text doesn't stay centered

Yeah unfortunately this is mostly working-as-implemented. The box size isn't a thing I can change; "Wide Mode" lets it the box be big, otherwise it's small.

Text centering might be possible if you're in "Wide Mode" -- I'll look into that.

Replies from: austin-chen

↑ comment by Austin Chen (austin-chen) · 2022-05-13T12:26:16.738Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Text centering should now be live!

Hmm, I am not quite sure that I know what you’re asking. I don’t know what you think your principle is, so I couldn’t say what violates that. I will note what problems I perceive; whether they violate your principle is, of course, something you’re more qualified to determine than I am.

First, a slight digression on the subject of tears to wine. (You may skip this section if you are in a hurry, though I do think the point I make here is relevant to discussions of how “munchkinable” Pathfinder is.)

It is a well-known feature of 3e-like systems (D&D 3rd edition, D&D 3.5, Pathfinder) that they get more complex with time, as their creators release more and more “splatbooks” and other rules content. There is no real “availability scoping” in the rules, so when Paizo publishes a new book of rules content, such as the Arcane Anthology, there is no hard distinguishing factor between, say, a spell that appeared in the Core Rulebook and one that appears in the newly-published book. In this way, the amount of stuff in the game system increases monotonically with time, and likewise does the number of possible interactions between system components.

This makes “munchkining” a “mature” 3e-like system easier than doing so with a younger such system—there’s simply many more things to potentially exploit (and “power creep” is a thing as well; for reasons of market incentives, later-published content tends to be more exploitable than earlier-published content). This is a problem for users of the system, but it is not as much of a problem as it could be, because the solution to this, as to many other things, is the Game Master. It is commonly understood that a GM is well within his prerogative not to simply allow the use of all published theoretically-canonical game content, but to limit what is available, to one degree or another. (Indeed, you will hear this recommendation perhaps most clearly precisely from those communities of D&D/PF players who specialize in analysis of “theoretical optimization” a.k.a. munchkining.)

After all, if Paizo publishes the Arcane Anthology (where the spell tears to wine is found), there is not, actually, any law that says that this fact automatically means that any of the content in said “splatbook” is true in your specific campaign setting (if you are a GM). It’s your choice! Now, of course, you can take it as an axiom that all canonical published content is true of your setting (the Eberron campaign setting for D&D 3.5 is, famously, built on this premise). But you don’t have to do that.

And given that you don’t have to do it, making that choice is, well, a choice. By selecting “all published canonical content” as the scope for what is true in your Pathfinder-based setting, you inherently make it much easier for yourself, if you want to do “munchkinry”. With a 3e-like system as mature as 1st edition Pathfinder, when all canonical published content is “in scope”, coming up with an exploit is more often merely a matter of finding the right spell in the right splatbook (a task made much easier by websites such as the Archives of Nethys) than it is of any particularly clever hack.

Note that such a broad scope also substantially reduces the value of the work to the reader, along the dimension I describe in the grandparent comment. After all, if I am reading along and thinking “hm, how will the Conspiracy handle this one, let me think now”, then even if I am fairly well familiar with Pathfinder, there’s no way I can recall every feat, every spell, every magic item, every exotic piece of rules content in every splatbook, Adventure Path, and anything else that Paizo has ever published! With such a vast universe of possibilities, I have little choice but to resign myself to the fact that I have no idea what’s going to happen next. It could be anything at all. In Pathfinder 1st edition ca. 2022, “finding an obscure spell that does <thing>” is, in practice, little different from “making up, de novo and for your plot convenience, a spell that does <thing>”. You are technically remaining within the genre-standard set of constraints… but the reader is almost entirely incapable of predicting your moves, because those constraints are so loose.

However, none of this is the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote the grandparent comment. This is merely a digression—which is now over.

The most obvious problem with Project Lawful (and one of the most severe, due to how often it appears) is that message does not work that way.

Let’s first review the message spell. It is a 0th level spell (cantrip), castable at will by a spellcaster of any of the listed classes, if known (for spontaneous casters) or prepared that day (for prepared casters). It affects up to 1 creature per caster level (e.g., 3 creatures when cast by a 3rd-level wizard), has a duration of 10 minutes per caster level (e.g., 30 minutes for a 3rd level wizard), and a range of of 100 feet plus 10 feet per caster level (e.g., 130 feet for a 3rd level wizard). (Note that when a wizard is referred to as “second-circle” in Project Lawful, this appears to mean that they are able to cast 2nd-level spells but no higher, meaning that they have either 3 or 4 wizard class levels, in Pathfinder terms.) It has verbal, somatic, and focus components (the F component is a piece of copper wire, though this is mostly irrelevant). The spell’s description reads thus:

You can whisper messages and receive whispered replies. Those nearby can hear these messages with a DC 25 Perception check. You point your finger at each creature you want to receive the message. When you whisper, the whispered message is audible to all targeted creatures within range. Magical silence, 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal (or a thin sheet of lead), or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks the spell. The message does not have to travel in a straight line. It can circumvent a barrier if there is an open path between you and the subject, and the path's entire length lies within the spell's range. The creatures that receive the message can whisper a reply that you hear. The spell transmits sound, not meaning; it doesn't transcend language barriers. To speak a message, you must mouth the words and whisper.

The procedure for using message to communicate thus looks roughly like this (we will assume a 3rd level wizard when specific numerical values are needed; modify as appropriate for casters of other classes and/or levels):

1. As a standard action (the spell’s casting time), select up to 3 creatures, all of which are within 130 feet of you, all of which you can see, and to all of which you have line of effect[1], and point to each of them as you cast the spell.

2. At any time within the next 30 minutes, you can whisper a message; the message will then be delivered to the target creatures.

3. The targeted creatures whisper a reply, which is delivered to you.

As the act of casting message and the act of using an active message spell to actually send a message are distinct, let’s consider each separately.

Casting the spell

The following conditions (among others) obtain when you cast a message spell:

a. You must be able to see all targets on which you cast message. (General rules for spellcasting.) You cannot cast message on someone in a different room, or around a corner, or with your eyes closed, or if they’re invisible (and you have no means of seeing invisible things), etc.

b. You must have line of effect to all targets on which you cast message. (Ditto.) Any solid barrier whatsoever blocks line of effect. This is another reason why you can’t cast message on someone around a corner or in the next room, but the line of effect requirement also prevents you from casting message on someone on the other side of a transparent glass window, or a wall of force, etc.

c. You must provide all of the spell’s components—in this case, a verbal component, a somatic component, and a focus (a piece of copper wire). Relevant rules include:

A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.

A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

A focus component is a prop of some sort. Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed when the spell is cast and can be reused. As with material components, the cost for a focus is negligible unless a price is given. Assume that focus components of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.

(That “negligible cost” provision does indeed apply to the piece of copper wire which is the focus for a message spell.)

To summarize: in order to cast message, you must speak an incantation in a strong voice; you must make a measured and precise movement of the hand; and you must provide, from your spell component pouch, a piece of copper wire as a prop.

An obvious question: are there any ways to avoid having to provide one or more of the spell’s components?

There are some such ways. Here is one which does not work: the Eschew Materials feat, which allows a spellcaster to ignore material components when such components cost less than 1 gp… but, unfortunately, does absolutely nothing about having to provide a focus, whatever its cost might be.

One might also use metamagic feats, such as Silent Spell and Still Spell; these allow a spellcaster to modify a spell so as to be castable without verbal or somatic components, respectively. (I am not aware of a metamagic feat that would let a spell be cast without a focus, if the spell normally has a focus.) However, such feats modify the spell’s effective level; so a wizard, e.g., would have to prepare message as a 1st level spell for it to be Still or Silent, or as a 2nd level spell for it to be Still and Silent. A message spell prepared thus would not be castable at will, as that is a property of 0th-level spells (cantrips) only.

d. You must point your finger at each creature on whom you wish to cast the message spell.

All of these things combine to create two important effects:

i. When message is cast, its targets—i.e., those creatures to whom the caster can, at any time in the spell’s duration, send whispered messages—are limited to those creatures who are in the same “room” (more broadly: between eligible targets and the caster there must be no solid barriers, not even translucent ones, nor can they be, in any way, hidden from the caster’s sight; nor can they be more than [100 + 10 per caster level] feet away).

ii. The act of casting message is—for low-level wizards such as the Project Lawful girls, anyway—very clearly noticeable by anyone in the vicinity.

Digression on spell manifestations (skippable if you are in a hurry):

Paizo’s official Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook FAQ includes the following entry:

What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

If this rule holds, then all spells (certainly including message) have obvious-to-onlookers magical manifestations (regardless of whether the spell has any components!). This would then be an additional reason why the casting of message would be unambiguously noticeable to anyone in the caster’s vicinity.

Official FAQ entries constitute canonical game content; thus, if you have decided that all published official content is “in scope” in your setting, then this includes material found in FAQ entries as well. However, this particular FAQ entry is a famously controversial one. When it was published, there was a sense, among many Pathfinder players and GMs, that the designers at Paizo were trying to “retcon” into existence a rule which has never existed in any rules text, even by implication. (It is true that illustrations in published Pathfinder materials almost invariably show some sort of glowing runes or flashing lights or some similar sort of visible effect whenever they depict a character in the act of spellcasting—but are we to take artistic choices to constitute statements of rules intent, when they are backed up by nothing, not even so much as a passing mention, in the text? —thus went the reasoning, among many.)

I thus do not hold it against you, Eliezer, that you ignore this particular rule, in Project Lawful. Nevertheless, diligence demands that it be mentioned.

Digression ends.

Using the spell

Supposing that you (a hypothetical 3rd-level wizard) have cast message, selecting up to 3 creatures as the targets, you now have a 30 minute period during which, at any time and as many times as you like, you can send whispered messages to all of those creatures. When you wish to do so, the following conditions (among others) obtain:

a. Only those of your targeted creatures who are within 130 feet of you will receive your whispered message; any that are further away will not receive anything.

b. Should there fail to be a path (all parts of which are within 130 feet of you, and no part of which is blocked by 1 foot of stone, or 1 inch of common metal, or a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt, or a magical silence effect) between you and any of your targeted creatures, that target will likewise receive nothing.

c. To transmit a message, you must mouth the words and whisper. (You cannot just form the words mentally; nor can you use ventriloquism-like techniques to whisper without mouthing the words; nor can you mouth the words silently—remember that “the spell transmits sound”! Note that this requirement still holds even if the spell is prepared with the Silent Spell and/or Still Spell metamagic feats, as those feats affect a spell’s components, not its effect.)

Note that this condition means that not just casting, but also using, a message spell, is something that cannot be done without risk of nearby people noticing. Of course it is possible for someone to not notice when a person right next to them is whispering and mouthing words… but it requires that the former person be somehow distracted, not paying attention, not looking directly at the message-user, etc. (In particular, it is not possible, for instance, for there to be three people in a room, all of whom are looking at each other and who are not intensely concentrating on something extremely distracting, and for two of them to be exchanging messages via message while the third is totally oblivious to this “side channel” and the conversation taking place on it.)

Likewise, it’s clearly not possible to use message to send messages while you are speaking aloud (your mouth and vocal cords can’t do two things at once, after all).

d. Those nearby can hear these messages with a DC 25 Perception check.

For reference, another hearing-based task that takes a DC 25 Perception check is “ Hear a bow being drawn”. This is difficult, but not impossible. (Note that this is the DC to hear the messages, not the DC to notice that someone is whispering something—the latter would require a check at a lower DC!)

Summary

Casting a message spell is very noticeable, and is limited by your locale’s layout in the targets available to you.

Using an active message spell to send messages is not as obvious, but still unquestionably noticeable to anyone in your immediate vicinity, and is less limited in applicable recipients by your locale’s layout, but still limited (and one must re-cast message if one wishes to add targets which were not selected by an already-active message spell).

But in Project Lawful, people routinely use message as, effectively, a fully telepathic side channel for unrestricted verbal communication which can be used without any risk whatsoever of someone who is directly adjacent to sender or recipient(s) noticing anything happening. (I have many examples which I can produce, but this comment is very long already. Details, as before, available upon request.)

It is clear that this usage is not supported by the rules text. But this is no mere quibble; the deviation is consequential. The ability to use message in this “basically just telepathy” way is a substantial boost to the capabilities of low-level spellcasters. (No sensible GM would ever permit message to be used in the way that it is used in Project Lawful, and with good reason—spellcasters, already quite powerful in Pathfinder, ought not be further empowered by misuse of the rules!)

Furthermore and specifically, if the members of the Conspiracy had to stick to the Pathfinder rules as written in their use of message, they could not perform many of the deceptions which they perpetrate upon Keltham. Substantial chunks of the story would either not work at all, or would have to be rewritten, sometimes from scratch.

Final note

The abuse of message is not the only problem of this sort in Project Lawful. It is, however, perhaps the most glaring one (at least, to me), and one of the most pervasive. This comment is, as I said, already very long, so I will forbear to list other examples—but more examples are, indeed, available upon request.

I think you have substantially misread my point.

It is not necessary, for anything I said, that Keltham should “know” that “he is inside a roleplaying game”. (I don’t think it’s even true, in-story, that “he is in a roleplaying game”, so there isn’t anything for him to “know”, in that case.)

I did not say anything about ‘a class of fiction whose key feature is “person familiar with game X suddenly transported into an instance of game X”’. What I said was:

“person find himself in world which is governed by rules of tabletop roleplaying game, must now exploit those rules to survive/win”

I will also note, even aside from your mischaracterization of my point, that your protestations are substantially subverted by the fact that the characters in Project Lawful are constantly talking about people’s ability score values, their Sense Motive and Bluff and so on, etc. Yes, there are in-story explanations (for some of these things, less so for others), but that’s the point: this is a world with knowable rules, and people know them. Including Keltham, increasingly.

"convention" vs "rules" but Keltham has had some stuff in that direction crossing his mind.

I will note that the Project Lawful examples I have in mind can’t be fairly described as “minutiae”; they get at fairly fundamental aspects of the structure of the rules and the world.

(That said, it’s of course quite reasonable not to care at all about that sort of thing.)

(that said, your comment prompts me to wonder about the domain of videogames, where there typically isn't DM judgment restricting XP gain. You've also written about World of WarCraft and I find myself curious if the 2 year emperor trick works there)